Timothy Kim Annotation #5 10/14/2011 Blue Gold Word Count: 1647
Blue Gold was directed by Sam Bozzo and released in 2008.
What is the central argument or narrative of the film? As the world’s fresh water is disappearing and we are polluting and wasting away our very limited supply, corporate giants are privatizing developing countries’ fresh water. As tension grows, military control of fresh water is rising, setting the stage for world water wars. On the other hand, people are willing to risk everything for their right to water, their right to survive.
How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film examines the world’s rapidly approaching water crisis and suggests that wars of the future will be fought over water as they are over oil today. Through a young student’s presentation on basic ecosystems, like the cycle of water, the film argues that privatizing the water can destroy the ecosystem. The film provides a wide range of scientific information from 97% of Earth’s water is salt water and 3% is fresh water to disturbing scientific data that reveals the flaw in the world trading system. The different size of water drops, whose size varies according to the amount of water needed to grow a product, offers a clear visual of the problem. In addition the film uses very emotional story of Pablo Valencia in 1906. After narrating his death due to dehydration, the narrator states that the film “is not a film about saving the environment, it is about saving ourselves.” The film also narrates stories of poor people in Africa, who cannot afford the water, end up going back to the river that is polluted and get killed in the house of fire since nobody is willing to use their water to save them. 1
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The corporate giants force government and lobby politicians to privatize the water system in France and the United Kingdom. These corporations influenced the U.N. to announce The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development on January 31, 1992. They acknowledged that “water has an economic value in all its competing uses … [and] should be recognized as an economic good.” This allowed legal ground for the industry to compete for the water and privatize it. As gas industry is declining, more investors and industry are looking at water as a new source of profits. More than a handful of funds, bonds, stocks, and trading items are now on the list at Wall Street and didn’t exist 10 years ago. While World Bank was supposed to use money from rich countries to help developments of poor countries, World Bank worked with three giant water companies and demanded developing countries to privatize the water system for their debt reliefs. Only rich countries can afford very expensive technology that provides fresh water, like a desalination plant. Companies like GE, Proctor and Gamble, and Dow Chemical are trying to make profits from dirty water by processing it. Gaining the rights of their processed water becomes a controversial issue. Along with many wrong behaviors conducted by the water companies, a water company also filed a SLAPP Suit, a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, in which a corporation sues an organization in an attempt to scare it into dropping protests against a corporate initiative. Water is a source of life. By privatizing the water, the water company is trying to control our lives, cultures, and beliefs. The film also discusses the sources of water pollution and its ecological impacts. After the corporations forced developing countries to open up their resources, they extracted all the resource and destroy their environments.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I was most persuaded and compelled when Maude Barlow, the founder of the Blue Planet Project, described the water privatization by global companies as a new form of colonization. She explained further that Coca-Cola is colonizing developing countries by monopolizing the drinkable water. Dasani is the only water bottle you will see in many African countries. The Coca-Cola Company is forcing government to not allow any purifiers and other companies to sell water products. Despite the fact that coke is packaged in glass bottle and Dasani is packaged in plastic bottle, African has to pay about 75% more for the water than Coke. I knew that economy has been new war front where colonization still happens in different forms. Actually seeing the evident example of the Coca-Cola Company gave me clear idea how global corporations extract the resource and do not concern about people in developing country.
I liked the view of a river as a living system. One of the purposes of river is to carry stuff, nutrients. I never thought the dam was an ecological problem. After hearing from numerous interviewers, I was convinced that water quality and the system get disturbed when a dam is blocking the flow.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not compelled with the Bush family story since the film made the assumption that the family’s interest reflects the country’s interest. I view the story as the powerful family who is using resources of the government for personal investment. Once they made an investment, the family influence government to protect their personal properties.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film best addresses audiences in developing countries, citizens of any metropolitan where the corporations privatized their water system, and the environmentalists who oppose the dam. In fact, the subject of the film is too sensitive that it appeals to almost everyone. The film views the water crisis as a matter of survival. Compared to any other environmental movie, the film is much more powerful addressing and engaging the issue with audience.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
If the film could develop how urbanization causes the shortage of water more in depth, it would enhance its environmental education value. The facts and arguments on urbanization made through the film but they were obvious ones: cities are growing and expanding for the first time in human history; more people are living in city than in country side; people replace the permeable ground with hard scape, such as roofs, parking lots, roads, and paved plaza. Michal Kravik explains that through surface runoff, “worldwide, we are [annually] losing 750 billion cubic meters, and this [urbanization] started after World War II, so we can say that we are at the half-way-point, and in fifty years there will likely be a collapse of the planet water source.” 2
The film also brought up interesting fact about the developers. For developers, more houses means more profits. A developer’s goal is to avoid the water issue that might limit the number of housing. As a result, a developer force more housings than what local water shed can provide. We force world water system to adopt our life style we desire to live. If the film could challenge the role of the developers and address the sustainable development, the film could enhance its environmental educational value more.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective actions, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
Like people in Bolivia, people should stand up and demand their rights for water. We need to dig holes, so water can be collected and soaked into the ground. According to Michal Kravcik, he argues that “this model can create millions of jobs for poor people around the globe [and] Blue Alternative is a very simple, cheap solution to a complex problem.” The film also suggests people to go back to food system that is not dependent on global trade system; grow crop that is suitable to climate and amount of water available. Like Bolinas, California, citizens must stop hosing development as water limit is reached. People should learn to live with given amount of watershed. People can start with simple practice, like using low flow shower head and turning off the tap when brushing teeth or shaving. If your local climate can’t keep your lawn green, don’t have a lawn. People should take power to become guardian of water. People should know where their water is coming from and the name of watershed to gain ownership of water.3
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
The documentary The Bottom Line: Privatizing the World was directed by Carole Poliquin and released in 2002. The film focuses on the problem of the privatization. The film shows the two sides of the story on privatization: One side believing the privatization is a winner-take-all opportunity; other side arguing the privatization is the exploitation of scarcity in its most extreme form. The film challenges big business’s alarming rush to commodify the world’s common resources. The film includes controversial issues, like exporting water from Canada, creating hybrid crop seeds and imposing their use on farmers, patenting the BRCA1 gene sequence, fighting against the free dispensing of generic versions of patented HIV medications, and drafting international trade agreements that create negative precedents that override existing environmental laws. The film shows stories of people struggling to protect common properties and interests. The film also shows cases of privatization in human genes, health. The film argues that the patent and international law exist to protect Investor’s and capital’s property NOT people’s life. It also shows examples of how Free Trading Agreements allow corporations to sue the government and gain their rights. Although the film ends with the positive message that the WTO has finally recognized that public health should be taken into account when interpreting intellectual property rights, the film clearly shows that the privatization doesn’t consider public health.
Notes 1. “Blue Gold Press Kit”.Blue Gold: World Water Wars. www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com. 3 January 2010. 2. Bozzo, Sam. Blue Gold. Purbple Turtle Films. 2008. 3. Bozzo, Sam. Blue Gold. Purbple Turtle Films. 2008.
Blue Gold
Word Count: 1647
Blue Gold was directed by Sam Bozzo and released in 2008.
What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
As the world’s fresh water is disappearing and we are polluting and wasting away our very limited supply, corporate giants are privatizing developing countries’ fresh water. As tension grows, military control of fresh water is rising, setting the stage for world water wars. On the other hand, people are willing to risk everything for their right to water, their right to survive.
How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The film examines the world’s rapidly approaching water crisis and suggests that wars of the future will be fought over water as they are over oil today. Through a young student’s presentation on basic ecosystems, like the cycle of water, the film argues that privatizing the water can destroy the ecosystem. The film provides a wide range of scientific information from 97% of Earth’s water is salt water and 3% is fresh water to disturbing scientific data that reveals the flaw in the world trading system. The different size of water drops, whose size varies according to the amount of water needed to grow a product, offers a clear visual of the problem. In addition the film uses very emotional story of Pablo Valencia in 1906. After narrating his death due to dehydration, the narrator states that the film “is not a film about saving the environment, it is about saving ourselves.” The film also narrates stories of poor people in Africa, who cannot afford the water, end up going back to the river that is polluted and get killed in the house of fire since nobody is willing to use their water to save them. 1
What sustainability problems does the film draw out?
The corporate giants force government and lobby politicians to privatize the water system in France and the United Kingdom. These corporations influenced the U.N. to announce The Dublin Statement on Water and Sustainable Development on January 31, 1992. They acknowledged that “water has an economic value in all its competing uses … [and] should be recognized as an economic good.” This allowed legal ground for the industry to compete for the water and privatize it. As gas industry is declining, more investors and industry are looking at water as a new source of profits. More than a handful of funds, bonds, stocks, and trading items are now on the list at Wall Street and didn’t exist 10 years ago. While World Bank was supposed to use money from rich countries to help developments of poor countries, World Bank worked with three giant water companies and demanded developing countries to privatize the water system for their debt reliefs. Only rich countries can afford very expensive technology that provides fresh water, like a desalination plant. Companies like GE, Proctor and Gamble, and Dow Chemical are trying to make profits from dirty water by processing it. Gaining the rights of their processed water becomes a controversial issue. Along with many wrong behaviors conducted by the water companies, a water company also filed a SLAPP Suit, a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, in which a corporation sues an organization in an attempt to scare it into dropping protests against a corporate initiative. Water is a source of life. By privatizing the water, the water company is trying to control our lives, cultures, and beliefs. The film also discusses the sources of water pollution and its ecological impacts. After the corporations forced developing countries to open up their resources, they extracted all the resource and destroy their environments.
What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
I was most persuaded and compelled when Maude Barlow, the founder of the Blue Planet Project, described the water privatization by global companies as a new form of colonization. She explained further that Coca-Cola is colonizing developing countries by monopolizing the drinkable water. Dasani is the only water bottle you will see in many African countries. The Coca-Cola Company is forcing government to not allow any purifiers and other companies to sell water products. Despite the fact that coke is packaged in glass bottle and Dasani is packaged in plastic bottle, African has to pay about 75% more for the water than Coke. I knew that economy has been new war front where colonization still happens in different forms. Actually seeing the evident example of the Coca-Cola Company gave me clear idea how global corporations extract the resource and do not concern about people in developing country.
I liked the view of a river as a living system. One of the purposes of river is to carry stuff, nutrients. I never thought the dam was an ecological problem. After hearing from numerous interviewers, I was convinced that water quality and the system get disturbed when a dam is blocking the flow.
What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
I was not compelled with the Bush family story since the film made the assumption that the family’s interest reflects the country’s interest. I view the story as the powerful family who is using resources of the government for personal investment. Once they made an investment, the family influence government to protect their personal properties.
What audiences does the film best address? Why?
The film best addresses audiences in developing countries, citizens of any metropolitan where the corporations privatized their water system, and the environmentalists who oppose the dam. In fact, the subject of the film is too sensitive that it appeals to almost everyone. The film views the water crisis as a matter of survival. Compared to any other environmental movie, the film is much more powerful addressing and engaging the issue with audience.
What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
If the film could develop how urbanization causes the shortage of water more in depth, it would enhance its environmental education value. The facts and arguments on urbanization made through the film but they were obvious ones: cities are growing and expanding for the first time in human history; more people are living in city than in country side; people replace the permeable ground with hard scape, such as roofs, parking lots, roads, and paved plaza. Michal Kravik explains that through surface runoff, “worldwide, we are [annually] losing 750 billion cubic meters, and this [urbanization] started after World War II, so we can say that we are at the half-way-point, and in fifty years there will likely be a collapse of the planet water source.” 2
The film also brought up interesting fact about the developers. For developers, more houses means more profits. A developer’s goal is to avoid the water issue that might limit the number of housing. As a result, a developer force more housings than what local water shed can provide. We force world water system to adopt our life style we desire to live. If the film could challenge the role of the developers and address the sustainable development, the film could enhance its environmental educational value more.
What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective actions, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
Like people in Bolivia, people should stand up and demand their rights for water. We need to dig holes, so water can be collected and soaked into the ground. According to Michal Kravcik, he argues that “this model can create millions of jobs for poor people around the globe [and] Blue Alternative is a very simple, cheap solution to a complex problem.” The film also suggests people to go back to food system that is not dependent on global trade system; grow crop that is suitable to climate and amount of water available. Like Bolinas, California, citizens must stop hosing development as water limit is reached. People should learn to live with given amount of watershed. People can start with simple practice, like using low flow shower head and turning off the tap when brushing teeth or shaving. If your local climate can’t keep your lawn green, don’t have a lawn. People should take power to become guardian of water. People should know where their water is coming from and the name of watershed to gain ownership of water.3
What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out?
The documentary The Bottom Line: Privatizing the World was directed by Carole Poliquin and released in 2002. The film focuses on the problem of the privatization. The film shows the two sides of the story on privatization: One side believing the privatization is a winner-take-all opportunity; other side arguing the privatization is the exploitation of scarcity in its most extreme form. The film challenges big business’s alarming rush to commodify the world’s common resources. The film includes controversial issues, like exporting water from Canada, creating hybrid crop seeds and imposing their use on farmers, patenting the BRCA1 gene sequence, fighting against the free dispensing of generic versions of patented HIV medications, and drafting international trade agreements that create negative precedents that override existing environmental laws. The film shows stories of people struggling to protect common properties and interests. The film also shows cases of privatization in human genes, health. The film argues that the patent and international law exist to protect Investor’s and capital’s property NOT people’s life. It also shows examples of how Free Trading Agreements allow corporations to sue the government and gain their rights. Although the film ends with the positive message that the WTO has finally recognized that public health should be taken into account when interpreting intellectual property rights, the film clearly shows that the privatization doesn’t consider public health.
Notes
1. “Blue Gold Press Kit”.Blue Gold: World Water Wars. www.bluegold-worldwaterwars.com. 3 January 2010.
2. Bozzo, Sam. Blue Gold. Purbple Turtle Films. 2008.
3. Bozzo, Sam. Blue Gold. Purbple Turtle Films. 2008.